After talking with many residents in the Pepper Tree neighborhood, it was clear that few have even heard of the Santa Clara Square project. This project would put a mix of High Density housing, structured parking, commercial/retail space, and offices into buildings 8 stories, 6 stories, and 5 stories tall right on the corner of El Camino Real and Lawrence Expressway.

Paraphrasing from the Final EIR information:

The project site is located at 3610 and 3700 El Camino Real, at the southwesterly quadrant of El Camino Real and Lawrence Expressway (in the shopping area near Kohl’s that used to have the K-Mart). The site includes the following Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 313-06-002 and -004.

The project is a Planned Development rezoning application to allow the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of single family attached residential units above office and commercial/retail space on approximately 12.6 acres. The project includes up to 490 residential units, up to 171,000 square feet of commercial/retail space and up to 12,300 square feet of office space. The residential units will be separately sold condominiums. The 171,000 square feet of commercial/retail space includes 147,741 square feet of commercial/retail space that is currently on the site. The existing 111,495 square foot Kohl’s store will remain and the free-standing restaurant space along El Camino Real and the commercial/retail space east of the Kohl’s building will be incorporated into the new commercial/retail space.

Building heights along El Camino Real will be 5 stories in height while buildings along the southerly boundary will be 6 stories in height and be located approximately 70 feet from the existing 2-story residential buildings in the area. 8-story buildings made up of four stories of residential floors on top of four-level structured parking are within the center of the project along Lawrence Expressway and the mid-site portion along Halford Avenue.

It is certain that one of the reasons residents in areas just outside of 300 feet of the project don’t know about the project is that the City of Santa Clara had no requirement to notify those outlying residents and, in keeping with their standard practices, chose not to do so.

For anyone that has time, I would recommend reading the City of Santa Clara’s responses to the concerns raised by both residents and public agencies. It is disturbing to see in print the City of Santa Clara’s attitude towards the density of the site (pages A-43 to A-44), the effect on the value of homes (page A-45), notification of residents affected by the project (pages A-48- A-49), the lack of public recreational space (page A-51), and the effects on traffic (pages A-51 to A-55). In short:

Increased Density: The city does not deal with the concern and instead falls back on the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) numbers and the decisions the city made in 2002 to comply with those numbers. They explain that El Camino Real and Lawrence Expressway are major thoroughfares, but make no mention of how the density will impact the traffic or potential future residents, to make no mention of the people already living in the area.

Lowered Real Estate Values: They note the comments on lower home values, but cite the CEQA Guidelines 15358(b) and state that social and economic impacts, such as changes in real estate value, are not required to be evaluated as part of the EIR. Then they follow the City of Santa Clara standard practice and choose not to address the lowered real estate issue.

300-foot Notification: Residents in both Santa Clara and neighboring Sunnyvale complained that they were not notified, but Santa Clara stuck to standard practice and explained that home owners within 300 feet were notified in accordance with State law. Mailing addresses were not requested from people who attended the neighborhood meeting in 2006 and e-mail addresses and phone numbers are being used instead to obtain addresses for future mailings. It is very clear that Santa Clara is taking a “least that we can do” stance.

Increased use of area parks / school fields: I quote: “The comments are acknowledged. As stated on page 76 of the Draft EIR, the project would increase the demand for public park facilities / school fields in the area. There is no way to quantify such usage. Increased public park usage is not a significant environmental impact unless new facilities are deemed to be required as a result of the project.” Isn’t this report supposed to determine if “new facilities are deemed to be required as a result of the project”? Sunnyvale’s concerns regarding the project are from the point of view of neighborhoods affected by the new development — neighborhoods like ours: “There should be a discussion of the impact that 490 homes at the proposed site would have on the parks located within the City of Sunnyvale.” They go on to ask: “The amount of on-site open space and recreation does not appear to remove the need for use of a larger park area. Does the amount of usable open space located on site meet the requirements of the City of Santa Clara?”

Traffic and Circulation concerns: The City of Santa Clara states: “The evaluation of operational and site access issues are not considered CEQA issues, nor are any identified operational deficiencies considered impacts”; then they choose to follow Santa Clara standard practice and ignore them. Later, when addressing existing congestion at El Camino Real and Lawrence Expressway: “the existing plus approved level of service at the intersection of El Camino Real and Lawrence Expressway would remain unchanged with the addition of project traffic; therefore, the project’s impact at that intersection would be less-than-significant.” Are they saying the addition of 490 residences and almost 200,000 square feet of renovated commercial/retail/office space will have no effect? Lastly, the City of Santa Clara closes with this observation: “Increased traffic does not directly relate to increased accidents.” At least their sense of humor is intact.

The eye-opening thing for me is not just how bad some of these responses are, but that they come from a city that is chartered to look after its citizens. Our city. You and me. It is disheartening to hear the City of Santa Clara give its “standard practice” answer and then choose not to go even an inch farther than required.

More to come.